Sedition Row: Former DU professor Geelani gets bail

New Delhi: Special judge Deepak Garg grants conditional bail to the former DU professor Geelani on Saturday. He said, “there is no allegation of the state that there is any apprehension of the accused fleeing from justice”.

Stating that “no fruitful purpose would be served” by keeping S A R Geelani in Tihar jail said in a statement during granting the conditional bail to former professor Geelani who was charged with sedition to attend a meeting to mark three years of the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru.

He further added that “Accused in custody since February 16, 2016. Admittedly, he is not required for further investigation in any manner. The completion of investigation is going to take time. In these circumstances of the case, in my view, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused in judicial custody pending further investigation.”

Geelani has been told not to leave “the jurisdiction of Delhi without permission of court”; he should surrender his passport, and pay a bail bond of Rs 50,000.

According to the sources, Special Judge Deepak Garg also explained that the culprit doesn’t make any treat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so disclosing the matter to the court or any other authority.

He said the “intention of creating public disorder” by an accused arrested under sedition can be seen by the court “only during trial”.

“In the present case, whether the words written or spoken, as alleged in the statement of the witnesses of the prosecution had the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order can be seen by the court well, during trial,” the judge said.

He said that no discussion is required on the argument of defence that contents of sedition under section 124 A IPC are not fulfilled in the case. He, however, agreed the explanation of the landmark judgement by the SC on sedition, observing “it is clear that criticism of public measures or comment on government action, however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression”.